I get questions about these ads all the time from union members- what is it about, why are they doing this, etc. I'd like to know who will be countering this group as the campaign gets nastier, so I can help out or donate. The public and union members need to be educated about EFCA and what it really means to them in terms of having a level of freedom from management pressure when unionizing.

Read The Conservative Nanny State (that's a link to both online PDF and paperback order) and you won't use the term "nanny state" without giving it a political label.

What's your point here Chuck? That there is narcissistic, adolescent pathology on both sides of the aisle and that is actually why the country and our state is in such trouble?

Disclosure - my uncle was a member of Teamsters Local 89, my father-in-law and two brothers-in-law were members of UAW in Louisville, KY until their retirements. I have worked in both union and non-union settings and have been a member of management teams working with unions and campaigning legally during representation campaigns.

Carla does a good job of exposing abuses by one group in this discussion. The rhetoric will certainly become more heated, personal and overreaching on both sides as the fall campigns swing into high gear. There can be no argument that laws passed in the 30's and 40's (Wagner Act 1935, Taft Hartley Act 1947) concerning labor relations need to be reviewed, updated and changed to reflect the emerging technology, government, and service related industrys of the 21st century.

The Employee Free Choice Act is poorly written, addresses only one side of the issue and needlessly ties up one party in the Labor-Managment partnership. And don't misunderstand - it is a partnership in those companies committed to success and survival. The Act as currently written only addresses doing away with the secret ballot and mandatory bargaining-mediation-arbitration as well as penalties against employers. It does not address union campaigning activities, decertification, or the main problem; an inefffective National Labor Realtions Board.

I fully support a modern, meaningful and deliberative Act reforming Labor Law and codifying Labor-Managment Relations for this century, not the last century. Under current regulations, unions have free reign to campaign full time anywhere but on company property on company time. COmpanies are specifically precluded from campaigning openly until AFTER a Petition for Representation has been delivered. In otherwords, the card check process has already taken place as presentation of cards checked (supposedly in a non-coercive environment) form the bedrock evidence of employee support for representation for their established work unit. Unions rarely move forward with a Petition unless they have in excess of 75% cards marked.

If a company wishes to voluntarily recognize the union as exclusive bargaining agent at this time they may do so or seek a secret ballot election at the conclusion of a 90-120 day campaign. Most companies choose the latter while many government agencies choose the former.

If a union is established as exclusive bargaining agent then negotiations begin. Under current law the requirement is that both sides bargain in good faith. Bargaining need not start at the status quo and there is no guarantee of work rules, wages or benefits changing appreciably.

The EFCA would do away with both dynamics above and mandate mandatory union recognition at 50% plus 1 on a card check without reforming company rights regarding campaigning. It also mandates bargining w/in 10 days, mediation after 90 days and binding arbitration after 120 days if the two sides are unable to agree. In effect one or both sides can bargin in less than good faith and hope for legally mandated mediation or arbitration to set the contract.

The EFCA does not even address decertification of unions. Presumably the secret ballot needs to be reformed for certification, but is fine for decertication. There can be no argument that Labor Acts from 60-70 years ago need to be changed dramatically and reformed. The EFCA may be a start, but it is not an answer for good Labor - Managmenr Relations going forward.

There's already been a chorus of rightwing voices in Oregon, claptrapping the eliminating the secret ballot lie.

You are lying when you claim that EFCA doesn't eliminate secret ballot elections. It does eliminate such elections if the union organizers don't wish to hold them. Which means that those workers who oppose the union -- the ones most in danger of being harrassed, shunned, or ostracized by union organizers -- will have no say whatsoever in union formation if the pro-union forces don't want them to. Unless you can show me in the legislation where a worker, any worker, can request a secret ballot election, then EFCA has given power to the union by taking it away from workers.

Past employer abuses are actually irrelevant to this discussion. It is very easy to imagine strong union legislation that solves many of these problems without creating an unfair situation for workers. That's not the direction unions went for obvious reasons. What's less obvious is why Democratic leadership went along with it. But I guess if you follow the money, that becomes pretty obvious too.

Karla - I hope you do not ignore this post. Bring me up to speed on your post - I would like a clarification on what precisely you mean by "claptrapping"? Just a little more detail so I understand your point better. Thanks.

Claptrap: 1. pretentious but insincere or empty language: His speeches seem erudite but analysis reveals them to be mere claptrap.
2. any artifice or expedient for winning applause or impressing the public.

Employee Free Choice Act doesn't eliminate the secret ballot..it gives employees a choice as to how they wish to make the decision on unions.

Which "employees" get that choice, Carla? All employees, or only those in favor of unionizing?

Further, it elminates rampant abuse by employers when it comes to the intimidation tactics used to try to thwart those who wish to organize.

It eliminates that abuse by pushing the process underground and inviting union organizers to engage in their own abusive practices.

the alleged "secret ballot" system now is rife with corruption.

And your answer to that is to put in place a system that allows for union abuse and corruption. This is kind of like responding to Republican voter intimidation with a law that allows for Democratic voter intimidation. How about a law that discourages intimidation on both sides?

Both my parents were union members for their entire careers. They both support unions, but will also share stories of union "organizers" (they would call them "thugs") whose job it was to make sure everyone "supported" the union. I worked in some union shops in my 20s (although never long enough to become a member) and first-hand witnessed union intimidation. Anyone who turns a blind eye to this -- which EFCA does -- is not truly supportive of workers, they are only supportive of the political donations they get from unions.

This issue is like PERS reform. Doing the right thing will be painful, it will cause outrage among organized labor, and may cause some good Dems to lose their seats. But it has to be done, if for no other reason than to send a message that our leaders have more integrity than to cave if threatened with the withholding of PAC money.

Miles, since you seem to oppose the EFCA, may I ask which structural reforms you would propose that would give working people more economic power and control over their working conditions?

Clever, "Joe". Your very name insists upon a rereading of history.

Read this, Miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWW

which structural reforms you would propose that would give working people more economic power and control over their working conditions?

First, we should prosecute employer abuses to the fullest extent. My understanding is that existing law already outlaws many of the abuses that labor cites when they push for things like the EFCA. Fully fund the NLRB, fully fund similar state labor boards, and aggresively investigate claims. Most employers will follow the law if they know that someone is looking over their shoulder, and make an example out of those who don't.

Second, make the election process itself fair. Neither labor nor management should have an unfair advantage when it comes to supplying information.

Third, ensure that every worker is able to have a say in whether his or her shop unionizes. This can only be accomplished through secret ballot elections. I actually think those elections should be mandatory, EVEN when management wants to voluntarily recognize a union. Having your wages garnished for union dues and turning over your negotiating power to the union is a big deal. If the majority supports such a move, it's fine to force the minority into it. But the only way you know for sure is if everyone has the freedom to vote yes or no without coercion.

All of those involved in the organizing process--whether they're for or against it, Miles.

Carla, this is obfuscation at its worst, as those involved in the organizing process are by definition in favor of the union. In your own post you quote the following: It would give workers seeking to organize the chance to choose between such an election, should 30 percent of all workers request it, or to pursue the so-called check-card process

So, those seeking to organize can choose an election if 30 percent have requested it. Of course, they can also NOT choose such an election, even if, say, 60% have requested it. And what if 25% want an election? No dice, and the wishes of one-quarter of the workforce are discarded in deference to the organizers who are opposed.

Please cite evidence that there has been rampant corruption by those wishing to organize unions, including pressuring or engaging in abusive practices to coerce employees into joining.

This is simple human nature. And it's also obvious to anyone who has worked in a union shop. When you're eating lunch with your colleagues, and they tell you to sign a union card, it takes a brave soul to say "No, I don't support that." It probably rarely rises to the level of actual abuse or corruption, it's simple peer pressure and the knowledge that you could be shunned if you disagree.

I keep wondering, why are labor organizers so afraid of a secret ballot election? Why are they afraid of the very people they seek to represent? If the problem is employer abuses, then let's address those first before taking rights away from workers.

Having been fired (more than once), intimidated, and black-balled by anti-union thugs and those who hired them for my organizing attempts in a nursing home industry that was rife with corruption, I can only agree with Carla that the threats to organizers under the so-called "secret ballot" system have been far more egregious than anything imagined by people who almost were union members in their 20's.

Time and time again, I have seen workers who wanted union protections "change their minds" after clear management intimidation. Not a single time in my life have I been under pressure by union organizers to act against my beliefs; nor have any threats ever been made to me by union organizers.

One part of this story is the role that unions play in balancing the overwhelming power of employers. Unions are the middle of the political spectrum; they exist because without them workers are at the mercy of employers' greed. Unchecked employer power is the most anti-democratic of possibilities.

Once upon a time, the DP was the party of union strength, but now it is the party of arguments like Miles'. If Democrats want to be taken seriously by the political center, they must support card check.

Harry, you had me until that last paragraph

"Once upon a time, the DP was the party of union strength, but now it is the party of arguments like Miles'. If Democrats want to be taken seriously by the political center, they must support card check."

Were you around Oregon Democratic Party politics in the mid-1980s?

Unions were a big part of the Mondale coalition which is fine---as long as they don't bully people. But unions are like all other organizations--they can attract the best and the worst, and like any other organization there are jems (the cream of the crop) and there are dregs.

As I recall there was union intimidation in at least one 1984 primary. In the mid-1980s, when there was labor unrest with state workers, there were people who showed up at party meetings (who hadn't shown up to do volunteer campaign work) who said "forget you ever knew any elected official who doesn't agree with us, because all Democrats support unions".

Possibly the best county Democratic chair we ever had was a long time activist from a union family. The best union people have great skill in organizing, and in running meetings well.

However, there were those union people who demanded unquestioning support of their actions. In the late 1980s some unions supported Packwood---and then their members came to state party meetings and demanded everyone vote with them on all issues. There was a debate about whether anyone who stood up with their union to endorse a Republican (as opposed to being out of the room, for instance, when that vote came up) should be stripped of a party title (chair of something, for instance).

Someone stood up once in front of a group at 1988 district delegate selection and said "The Democratic Party and the union movement are the same thing" and wondered why people came up to him afterwards and asked if people who were not union members were welcome in the Democratic Party.

Yes, there has been employer intimidation in the workplace, but there was union intimidation in 20th century politics.

Some years ago, at a State Central Comm. meeting, one DNC member gave a speech including the line "I have always supported unions, but unions should support Democrats". One of his friends had been nominated for major office, and this DNC member was upset at the number of unions who had endorsed the Republican incumbent.

Experience of those of us who have been around a long time is that there are wonderful union folks active in the Democratic Party, but also intimidation including a union person who was county chair at a county meeting years ago. When he tried to ram a resolution through and there was resisitance, someone asked for a quorum. What a radical, subversive thing to do! The chair allowed members to castigate that individual (without the customary, "Mr. Chair, the former speaker is an idiot" language) and one said "In my union, we don't ask for a quorum!". Anyone who was there was justified in saying "Oh, this is a union meeting and not a political party meeting?".

Organizations attract all sorts of folks, and broadbrushing everyone as either perfect or evil is not wise.

LT: The more union members in an economy, the better workers' pay and the greater workers' power in the work place, period.

Here's a non-NLRB solution from Tom Geoghegan:

"If the Civil Rights Act was amended to prevent discrimination 'on the basis of union membership,' it would curtail corporations' anti-labor assault by making the right to join a union an official civil right." (Six little words)

Let's see if the DP really wants to support workers. Will Obama support this amendment? Will Blumenauer or Wyden or Merkley? Fat chance.

Miles, I appreciate your response to my question. I think I see where our differences lie.

Did you see today's in Wall Street Journal (hardly an organ of the radical left) that companies are secretly moving money in workers' pension funds to finance executive benefits?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121761989739205497.html

The point I am trying to make here is that, while I acknowledge that unions have their undemocratic episodes and disappointing failings - my own union being no exception here - these very serious shortcomings pale beside the monstrous systemic evil inflicted on society by the forces of systemic capital every day, not because the people of management are intrinsically immoral, but because the social machinery we have set up forces the corporation to seek profit above all other considerations.

<h2>This demeans us all.</h2>